[tor] Re: Torservers Update

  • From: Kasimir Gabert <kasimir.g@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: torservers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 10:39:32 -0600

Hi Mitar,

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Mitar <mmitar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi!
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Moritz Bartl <moritz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I don't see how one signature could be a "big overhead".
> It is big mental overhead. At least when you are in some sense
> fighting current laws on one side you use its system (signature) on
> the other hand?
> If we are trying to make something for the better do we really need
> such formal tools instead of simply trust? Tor is build on trust:
> trust, that exit nodes will not sniff data, for example.
> Really, what do you see accomplished by signature? Will you then sue
> people if they break "contract"? That would be great news: "Torservers
> sues its Tor operator for sniffing traffic".
> Do you believe that people will take their volunteer work on keeping
> up such servers up more serious if they sign something? Or will they
> rather have a feeling that they are doing a non-volunteer work,
> contracted work?

It might be worth pointing out that as it stands today, the majority of
Tor nodes are run without any organization at all.  This will not change
with the existence of Torservers nor with any given structure of
Torservers.  If individuals are looking for help with running / hosting
/ etc their Tor nodes, then there are already a lot of places for them to
get it.

I feel that Torservers is providing a different service to some of us.  In
particular, it is allowing us to contribute to a Tor server financially
when we cannot contribute to a Tor server regularly.  It is allowing
people who cannot handle the abuse complaints to have the abuse complaints
handled for them.  Keeping an ``umbrella organization'' out of this would
remove those particular advantages---I really don't see the point in
trying to turn Torservers into ... well ... the Tor network :)

> [sniped]
> Hope you will see this e-mail as constructive. It was written as such.
> Mitar


Kasimir Gabert

Other related posts: